5'940 
N5IK 


iieopirii:;    '  '    -  unity   of 

By 
Willi'am  Ford    Ilichol?' 


.::  V  ir :. 


Keeping  the  Unity 
OF  THE  Spirit 


By  THE  Rt.  Rev.  William  f.  Nichols,  D.  D. 

BISHOP  OF  THE  DIOCESE 


Keeping  the  Unity 
of  the  Spirit 


SERMON 
Delivered  at  the  Opening  of  the 

Fifty-Second  Convention  of  the  Diocese 
OF  California 

by  the 

Rt.  Rev.  William  F.  Nichols,  D.D. 

bishop  of  the  Diocese 


Oaicland,  Cal. 

PRR3S  OF  THE  Oakland  ^nquirbr 

1903 


f\'5-/ 


vo 


Keeping  the  Unity  of  the  Spirit. 


Endeavoring  to  Keep  the  Unity  of  the   Spirit  in  the  Bond  of 
Peace.'' — Ephesians  iv:3. 

There  is  a  Unity  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  is  no  less  than  the 
Unity  of  God.  As  we  speak  of  the  Three  Persons  in  one  God, 
so  in  the  Blessed  Trinity  we  may  speak  of  the  Third  Person — 
the  Holy  Spirit — in  One  God.  Man  has  nothing  to  do  with 
making  and  breaking  that  divine  Unity.  That  is  obviously, 
then,  not  the  sense  in  which  we  are  to  consider  "  Unity  of  the 
Spirit  "  in  our  text. 

There  is  also  a  Unity  of  the  Spirit  as  we  have  knowledge  of 

His  working  in  the  history  of  mankind.     This  Unity  amounts 

to  a  perfect  consistency, — "'  as  it  was  in  the  beginning,  is  now, 

«o  and  ever  shall  be."     The  same  Spirit  that  brooded  over  the 

en 

^  face  of  the  waters,  inspired  the  prophets,  moved  holy  men  of 

>r  old  to  write  the  Scriptures,  co-worked  with  the  Second  Person 

2  of  the  Trinity  in  the  incarnation  of  Jesus  Christ,  came  in  the 

^  Pentecostal  tongues  of  fire,  maketh  intercession  for*  us,  and  is 

=:  in  all  the  ages  the  One  Spirit  of  the  One  Body  of  Qirist — His 

S^  Church.  i 

-       But  again  the  unity  with    itself  of  that  divine    agency — its 

oneness  and  identity  wherever  it  is  revealed  in  human  aflfairs — 

in  no  sense  depends  upon  our  "  keeping,"  and  the  text  cannot 

therefore  mean  to  exhort  us  to  anything  like  that  as  an  object 

of  our  effort  in  its  bidding  to  the  endeavor  to  keep  the  Unity  of 

the  Spirit.     And  so  we  narrow  down  thq  Apostolic  charge  to 

its  practicable  limits,  and  reach  its  precise  point.     The  Apostle 

portrays  a  condition  of  things  among  those  to  whom  he  was 

writing  which  leaves   no   doubt  as  to  the  pith  of  this  appeal. 

Indeed,  in    this    same    fourth  Chapter   of   the    Epistle  to  the 

Ephesians,  he,  as  it  were,  turns  the  exhortation  around  to  put 

it  in  another  way,  when  he  says,  "  Grieve  not  the  Holy  Spirit 

of  God,  *  *  *  Let  all  bitterness,  and  wrath  and  anger,  and 

clamour,  and    evil    speaking  be  put  aw^ay  from  you,  with  all 

malice,  and  be  ye  kind  one  to  another,  tenderhearted,  forgiving 


295586 


one  another,  even  as  God  for  Christ's  sake  hath  forgiven  you." 
This  all  well  explains  what  he  means  by  keeping  the  Unity  of 
the  Spirit  in]  the  bond  of  peace,  and  our  real  part  in  it. 

God  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  true  Peace-maker  of  the  Church, 
the  true  Unifier.  He  guides  us  into  Unity  as  into  truth.  He 
witnesses  to  it  with  our  spirits.  But'  we  can  resist.  We  can 
grieve  the  Holy  Spirit  with  our  self-chosen  courses,  and  disin- 
tegrate and  disrupt,  and  in  a  sad  measure  counteract  and  over- 
throw the  Unity.  Now  the  full  force  of  the  Apostle's  appeal 
does  not  reach  us  until  we'  see  that  he  is  sounding  ai  rally,  not 
merely  of  negative  bodies  who  are  trying  to  avoid  being  peace- 
breakers,  but  of  those  who  are  very  positively  and  zealously 
ranging  themselves  on  the  side  of  furthering  and  protecting 
Unity.  The  word  "  endeavoring  "  is  a  very  strong  one.  It 
implies  the  being  all  in  earnest  about  this,  the  alertness  and 
action  of  those  who  realize  that  they  propose  to  declare  them- 
selves as  against  thoughtlessly  or  frivolously  or  rashly  throw- 
ing to  the  winds  the  bond  of  peace.  If  there  is  such  a  thing  as 
crying  peace,  peace,  when  there  is  no  peace ;  there  is  also  such 
a  thing  as  allowing  individualism  or  petty  considerations  of 
self  to  work  a  noise  of  war,  war,  when  there  is  no  war.  And 
the  Apostle  here  counsels^  the  sentiment  which  would  protect 
Unity  from!  the  inroads  of!  all'  such  spirit  as  that,  and  soi  mini- 
mize the  power  of  discord. 

But  the  endeavor  to  keep  the  Unity  of  the  Spirit  must  be  in- 
telligent, well-timed  and  practical,  or  it  will  come  to  little,  how- 
ever earnest  or  well-meant  it  may  be.  We  must  look  at  things 
just  as  they  are.  We  must  frankly  and  fearlessly  follow  the 
factsi  with  which  we  have  to  deal  wherever  they  may  lead  us. 
We  must  take  as  wide  bearings  as  possible.  We  must  never 
mistake  any  toy  balloon  for  a  planet  of  God's  universe,  though 
both  may  be  well-rounded  and  floating  in  space;  nor  an  opin- 
ion for  a  universal  law,  however  ably  maintained.  The  mo- 
ment we  try  to  reach  the  definite!  idea  of  what  wei  are  to  keep 
as  thej  Unity  of  the  Spirit,  the  need  of  all  this  care  becomes 
obvious.  We  have  already  seen  that  our  province*  in  the  mat- 
ter is  confined  to  that  unity  as  it  represents  the  working  of  the 
Holy  Spirit!  in  the  Church  of  God. 


But  there  comes  in  another  trait  of  the  Holy  Spirit — known 
in  the  New  Testament,  as  the  liberty  of  the  Spirit — and  the 
evidence  of  this  traitf  is  as  great  a  fact  in  the  whole  history  of 
the  Church  as  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  for  Unity.  Indeed,  if 
we  take  the  one  matter  of  worship,  the  human  element  has 
ever  disturbed  the  divine  adjustment  of  these  two  influences  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  history.  Were  the  Church  perfect,  and 
were  its  members  ever  moving  under  the  full  and  harmonious 
and  unswerving  obedience  to  the  sway  of  the  Spirit,  unity  and 
liberty,  would  be  in  such  exact  poise  and  power  that  the  wor- 
ship of  earth  would  be  like  the  worship  of  heaven.  We  should 
worship  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  and  questions  about  worship 
would  be  impossible  and  unknown.  It  is  inconceivable  that 
angel  worship  would  ever  need  courts  of  appeal  to  decide  what 
is  lawful  and  what  is  not,  or  that  Cherubiml  and  Seraphim 
could  continually  have  a  usage  in  one  place  at  variance  with 
that  in  another. 

The  human  factor  with  its  (frailty,  however,  has  led  to  a  far 
different  condition  of  worship  in  the  Church  Militant  here  on 
earth.  The  ideal  interplay  between  unity  and  liberty  has  sadly 
failed  of  realization.  Theories  have  crowded  it  out,  sometimes 
one-sided  in  their  rigid  uniformity,  at  other  times  just  as  one- 
sided in  the  laxity  of  their  whole  conception  of  worship.  If 
there  were  the  time,  I  think  considerable  data  could  be  ad- 
duced to  show  how  in  the  history  of  worship  each  of  these  the- 
ories has  dominated  whole  sections  of  Christendom  and 
whole  epochs;  sometimes  succeeding  one  another  in  the  way 
of  reaction,  so  that  enforced  uniformity  has  given  way  to^  di- 
versity and  the  widespread  license  in  turn  to  unification,  as  the 
pendulum  swing  carries  it  from  one  extreme  to  the  other. 
»  Dolus  latct  in  gcncralibus  and  hasty  generalizations  are  ever 
hazardous,  but  I  venture  to  think  that  a  student  of  liturgies 
who  would  begin  with  the  undoubted  marks  of  variety  in  unity 
of  the  Apostolic  Church  would  find  a  certain  periodicity  of 
change  in  the  usages  of  worship,  marked  somewhat  on  the 
lines  I  have  indicated,  in  all  the  history  of  worship  since.  There 
would,  for  example,  be  traceable  the  tendencies  toward  unifi- 
cation of  usage  in  the  Sacramentaries  of  Gregorv  and  Gelasius 


in  the  5th  and  6th  centuries,  followed  by  the  same  tendencies 
under  what  is  known  as  the  Leo-Cassianic  Revisions  of  Litur- 
gies in  the  centuries  immediately  succeeding.  Or,  to  take  a 
specific  instance,  there  was  the  simplification  of  the  whole  mat- 
ter of  Proper  Prefaces  in  the  Gelasian  Communion  Offices,  so 
that  three  hundred  were  at  one  time  reduced  to  three. 

Then  again,  in  the  middle  ages  there  was  the  reactionary 
movement  away  from!  the  federation  of  worship  towards  its 
many-sided  localizing  of  custom  and  taste.  This  brings  us 
to  the  liturgical  lineage  of  the  English  Church  and  the  middle 
age  varieties  in  various  parts  of  even  the  small  area  of  Chris- 
tendom included  in  England,  known^  familiarly  as  the  usages 
of  Sanim,  York,  Lincoln,  Hereford,  &c.  And  now  the  tide 
of  uniformity  sets  in  again,  and  we  have  the  new  teaction  well 
defined  in  the  Preface  of  the  first  English  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  in  1549:  "  Where  heretofore  there  hath  been  great  di- 
versity in  saying  and  singing  in  churches  within  this  realm: 
some  following  Salisbury  use,  some  Hereford  use,  some  the 
use  of  Bangor,  some  of  York,  and  some  of  Lincoln:  Now  from 
henceforth,  all  the  whole  realm  shall  have  but  one  use." 

And  it  is  not  as  well  understood  as  it  might  be  that  this  was 
not  an  isolated  movement  in  the  Church,  but  that  Pope  Clem- 
ent Vn.  had  sometime  before  commissioned  Cardinal  Quignon 
to  revise  and  unify  the  services  of  the  Roman  Church.  This 
revision,  first  published  in  1535,  left  some  mark  upon  Cran- 
mer's  work,  and  the  Preface  of  the  Prayer  Book  of  1549  shows 
some  kinship  with  Quignon's  Preface  in  phrases  which  bear 
aptly  upon  the  very  reaction  towards  uniformity  which  we  are 
rioting. 

We  should  mark  carefully  this  intent  avowed  in  the  Preface 
of  1549  to  have  one  use  fori  the  Realm,  and  how  that  was  en- 
forced by  a  Parliamentary  "Act  of  Uniformity."  For  three 
hundred  and  fifty  years  such  has  been  the  position  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  the  provision  for  public  worship.  There 
is  but  one  Prayer  Book,  practically  unchanged  for  two  hun- 
dred and  forty  years,  and  the  use  of  that  book  is  guarded  with 
the  civil  penalties  that  would  follow  the  breach  of  a  Parliamen- 
tary enactment.     Though  not  guarded  in  the  same  way,  our 


American  Prayer  Book  is  equally  representative  of  the  same 
ideal  of  uniformity,  being  "  far,"  as  the  Preface  states,  "  from 
intending  to  depart  from  the  Church  of  England  in  any  essen- 
tial point  of  *  *  *  worship." 

For  over  three  centuries,  then,  the  use  of  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer  has  stood  for  and  trained  a  sentiment  of  uniformity 
in  worship.  There  has  been  no  appreciable  counter  theory. 
No  Diocese,  fort  instance,  would  think  of  setting  up  a  Prayer 
Book  of  its  own  in  distinction  from  the  Book  used  in  common. 
It  is  perhaps  not  too  much  to  say  that  to)  many  of  our  minds 
so  wonted  and  attached  to  the  Prayer^  Book,  the  possibility  of 
another  Prayer  Book  would  be  a  things  unheard  of,  and  even 
the  suggestion  of  one  would  be  accompanied  with  something 
of  an  unwelcome  shock. 

Let  this  stand  in  evidence  of  the  thorough  way  in  which  uni- 
formity of  worship  has  been  instilled  into  our  hearts  and  hves. 
I  could  name  many  reasons  why  I  thank  God  that  it  has  been 
so,  but  I  only  refer  to  the  fact  now  in  its  bearing  upon  the 
point  urged,  and  that  is,  that  in  our  own  Church  we  have  had 
a  distinct  era  ol  uniformity  in  worship,  and  that  it  has  lasted 
about  three  hundred  and  fifty  years. 

Three  centuries  or  so  has  more  than  once  constituted  a 
period  by  itself.  The  first  three  centuries  of  the  Christian 
Church  had  a  character  of  its  own  to  lead  historians  frequently 
to  use  it  as  one  of  the  grand  divisions  of  the"  history  of  the 
Church.  At  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century  began  a  well 
aligned  period  of  theological  agitation  and  of  the  General 
Councils.  Again  it  was  a  period  of  about  three  centuries  in 
England  from  Magna  Charta  to  the  Reformation,  from  the 
fc»rmula  "  In  primis  *  *  *  quod  Anglicana  ccclesia  libera  sit " 
to  the  working  out  through  varied  agents  and  agencies  the 
actual  freedom  which  had  been  asserted  all  along. 

So  the  three'  centuries  since  that  provision  for  one  use  for 
the  whole  realm  in  1549  may  have  done  a  specific  work  for  our 
worship.  As  the  first  three  centuries  of  the  Christian  Era  did 
so  much  to  unify  Church  government  within  the  Roman  Em- 
pire, so  these  last  three  centuries  may  have  been  an  era  among 
other  things  to  unify  our  worship.     The  period  is  significant 


8 

as  a  cycle  of  Church  accomplishment.  Three  centuries  and 
over  it  took  to  make  the  Imperial  Roman  soldiery  themselves 
bear  aloft  a  standard  of  the  cross  they  sentineled  at  Calvary. 
The  passing  of  three  centuries  and  over  has  endeared  the  one 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  to  the  modern  empires  of  English 
speaking  people. 

But  there  mayj  be  Jnore  significance  in  it  all  than  that,  and 
we  should  not  be  slow  to  see  it  if  there  is.  A  closing  period 
suggests  a  new  period.  The  ending  of  one  chapter  suggests 
the  beginning  of  another.  An  era  accomplished  suggests  an 
era  to  begin.  And  there  are  signs  of  the  times  which  do  dis- 
tinctly point  toward  the  setting  in  another  direction  of  the 
liturgical  instinct  of  the  Church.  For  about  seventy  years,  or 
since  the  beginning  of  the  Oxford  Movement  in  England  there 
has  been  an  increasing  tendency  toward  greater  variety  in  wor- 
ship. That  has  shown  itself  in  the  ever  growing  interest  in  the 
study  of  Liturgiology,  beginning  with  such  books  as  Palmer  s 
Origines  Litiirgicce,  and  creating  a  valuable  library  of  Anglican 
and  American  lore  upon  the  subject.  Early  Prayer  Book 
manuscripts  in  the  British  Museum  have  been  ransacked. 
Scattered  books  from  Crannier's  library  have  been  found  to  re- 
veal his  liturgical  sources.  So  marked  has  been  the  progress 
that  a  new  edition  (1901)  of  a  standard  work  upon|  the  Prayer 
Book  written  about  a  half  century  ago  had  to  be;  practically 
rewritten.  This  literature  has  thrown  much  light  on  the 
Prayer  Book,  cleared  up  both  the  law  and  the  freedom  that  ex- 
ists in  using  it  as  it  is,  has  enabled  us  in  our  American  Prayer 
Book  to  enrich  it  under  the  revision  concluded  in  1892,  and 
given  greater  flexibility  of  movement  to  our  whole  worship. 
That,  I  think,  all  will  observe  whose  memory  can  span  a  score 
of  years. 

But  with  it  all  has  come  the  opening  up  of  many  questions 
of  law  and  of  usage  with  an  inevitable  scope  for  individual 
preference  and,  practice,  and  so  we  seem  to  have  developing 
under  our  eyes  a  gradual  assertion  of  a  reaction  from  uniform- 
ity to  diversity,  as  though  a  new  current  of  Church  craving 
had  set  in.  It  is  important  that  we  should  calmly  and  candidly 
note  this  as  a  phenomenon    Vvithout    having    our    prejudices 


aroused  one  way  or  the  other.  It  is  a  matter  we  should  here 
scrutinize,  not  as  of  our  likes  or  dislikes,  or  of  our  fears  or 
hopes,  buti  as  a  simple  fact  challenging*  our  attention  to  study 
it  for  what  it  is  worth. 

And  looking  at  it  in  this  spirit,  this  widespread  breaking 
away  from  uniformity  gives  us  a  proper  standpoint  from  which 
to  fairly  inquire  what  it  all  means.  And  perhaps  it  dawns  upon 
us  that  it  may  mean  that  we  are  in  something  of  a  transitional 
age,  promising  to  lead  to  a  better  understanding  of  the  mind  of 
Christ  and  of  the  Church  with  reference  to  allowable  expres- 
sion of  the  infinite  varieties  of  character  and  climate,  and  race 
and  age  and!  century,  in  the  public  worship  of  Almighty  God. 
The  efifect  of  this  can  hardly  be  other  upon  an  open  mind  than 
to  lift  it  up  to  a  high  point  of  outlook,  for  to  be  able  to  see  over 
centuries  is  vastly  more  than  to  watch  any  second-hand  of  time 
noting  the  passing  instant,  and  far-reaching  movements  are 
ever  more  ennobling  and!  stimulating  to  scan  than  the  passing 
dust  they  raise.  And'  if  it  be  a  law  o|  the  centuries  that  eras 
of  variety  follow  those  of  uniformity,  and  if  we  are  at  this  very 
time  in  our  own  American  Communion  and  in  the  Anglican 
Communion  undergoing  changes  which  in  their  true  and;  full 
reading  do  at  any  rate  awaken  the  query  whether  an  era  of 
greater  flexibility,  in  worship  is  not  to  follow,  it  behooves  the 
men  of  this  generation  not  to  shut  their  eyes  to  it,  far  less  to 
view  it  with  jaundiced  eyes,  and  not  to  lose  the  clearing  up  it 
affords  to  many  a  misgiving  and  many  a  bewilderment  about 
knowing  where  to  take  one's  stand. 

This  standpoint  has  none  equal  to  it  that  I  know  of  in  its 
reading  of  ecclesiastical  signs  of  the  times,  or  in  making  a  ten- 
able and  sound  and  assuring  position  for  one  to  occupy.  He 
can  know  where  he  stands,  and  others  can  know  where  to  find 
him  in  many  besetting  problems  and  strifes  of  passing  Church 
life.  Moreover,  it  is  a  distinct  gain  towards  a  right  attitude  in 
the  endeavor  to  keep  the  Unity  of  the  Spirit. 

Worship  in  a  sense  is  an  expression  of  human  characteris- 
tics, and  in  so  far  as  it  is  so,  we  could  no  more  reasonably  ex- 
pect all  th^  worldl  to  worship  alike  than  to  dress  alike.  And 
personality  and  locality  must  color  worship  as  they  do  thought 


lO 

and  sentiment.  Voltaire's  famous  sneer  implied  that  the 
Anglo-Saxon  has  grown  up  with  the  idea  that  all  races  should 
worship  God  exactly  after  the  Anglo-Saxon  model.  And  it  is 
not  difficult  for  us  to  appreciate  how  the  ingrained  sense  of 
uniformity  of  which  I  have  spoken  fosters  such  a  fallacy.  And 
the  moment  it  is  stated  the  fallacy  becomes  as  manifest  as 
would  be  the  berating  of  an  Oriental  for  saying  his  prayers  on 
a  housetop  because  an  English  or  New  England  or  even  Cali- 
fornia winter  roof  does  not  suggest  a  help  to  devotion  from 
such  an  exposed  outlook. 

Now  the  liberty  of  the  Spirit  allows  for  the  personal  equation 
in  many  ways.  Take  the  inspired  writers.  St.  Luke's  pen 
carries  St.  Luke's  classical  individuality.  St.  Paul's  some- 
times cannot  go  fast  enough  to  keep  up  with  his  characteristic 
ardent  thought.  The  Petrine  is  a  well  marked  style.  The 
Holy  Spirit  divides  to  every  man  severally — or  after  that  man's 
own  stamp — as  He  will  and  uses  the  diversities  of  gifts.  And 
so  in  Apostolic  worship.  If,  as  is  presumable,  varying  forms 
of  worship  grew  up  around  these  great  leaders,  it  would  be  but 
the  natural  working  of  each  one's  mind  in  the  liturgy  as  on  the 
inspired  page. 

There  was  a  liberty  of  the  Spirit  in,  prophesying.  It  would 
be  but  fundamental  to  expect  like  traces  of  the  Holy  Spirit's 
use  of  distinct  human  traits  as  forms  bf  worship  were  in  pro- 
cess of  development.  And  in  point  of  fact  as  liturgies  emerge 
from  the  Apostolic  period  from  which  so  few  data  have  come 
down  to  us,  they  first  come  into  view  as  at  least  in  five  families, 
with  almost  unending  diiTerences  of  features. 

The  eflFect  of  having  this  historic  sense  is  to  give  just  recog- 
nition, whatever  the  personal  taste  or  tradition,  to  the  simple 
fact  that  Christendom  has  never  cast  its  worship  all  in  one 
mould.  Something  of  no  small  consequence,  I  believe,  follows 
from  this,  as  to  the  fair  and'  true  temper  of  mind  towards  this 
whole  matter  withim  our  own  Communion.  It  is  a|  corrective 
of  the  sense  of  bald  uniformity  in  which  we  have  been  trained. 
It  prepares  us  to  admit  that  if  in  itself  there  is  a  liberty  of  the 
Spirit  which  allows  for  temperament,  that  liberty  does  not  end 
wheni  we  see  Roman  or  Russian  exercising  the  right  to  wor- 


II 

ship  God  in  their  way.  If  it  is  a  Hberty  outside,  it  must  be  a 
liberty  inside  our  Communion  asi  well.  Indeed,  the  very  first 
words  of  the  Preface  of  our  own  American  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  put  all  this  plainly  in  our  charter,  sQ  to  speak.  "  It  is 
a  most  invaluable!  part  of  that  blessed  liberty  wherewith  Christ 
hath  made  us  free,  that  in  His  worship  different  forms  and 
usages  may  without  ofifence  be  allowed,  provided  the  substance 
of  the  Faith  be  kept  entire." 

The  fact  that  two  congregations  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  do  not  have  their  ornaments,  or  ritual,',  or  worship  ex- 
actly the  same,  inj  itself  is  not  a  reproach;  it  is  a  simple  ex- 
liibition  of  the  working  of  the  liberty  which  is  given 
to  the  Church.  And  if  just  now  these  divergencies  are 
especially  attracting  attention  throughout  the  Church,  it  may 
only  be  as  I  have  already  intimated,  the  dawning  of  an  era  of 
better  understanding  and  of  wider-mindedness  touching  both 
Catholic  liberty  and  Catholic  law  in  the  conduct  of  Public 
Worship.  It]  may  mean  not  disintegration]  but  re-integration, 
not  so  much  hopeless  strife  as  the  stir  of  larger  life. 

But  just  where  does  the  law  come  in?  you  may  say.  Is  not 
this  liberty,  however*  well  up  to  a  certain  point,  in  danger  of 
becoming  license?  Is  not  the  tendency  one,  if  unchecked,  lia- 
ble to  run  into  rank  individualism?  It  must  be  admitted  that 
such  a  concern  is  not  without  justification.  In  periods  of 
transition  there  are  always  men  who  go  too  far.  There  are 
others  who  unconsciously  become  a  law  unto  themselves. 
There  are  fstill  others  who  feel  called  upon  to  throw  so  much 
accent  on  the  liberty  that  they  make  very  poor  enunciation  of 
the  law.  There  may  be  rare  cases  of  using  liberty  for  a  cloak  of 
maliciousness.  But  allowing  for  all  this,  if  there  be  a  principle 
of  right  liberty  at  work  underneath  it  all,  that  must  be  reckoned 
with,  and  we  cannot  with  any  insight  or  foresight  disregard  it. 
We  can,  however,  find  its  true  place  and  scope,  and  so  co-ordi- 
nate it  and  subordinate  it  by  law.  And  the  glorious  liberty  of 
the  Children  of  God  is)  only;  possible  under  the  law.  To  en- 
deavor to  keep  the  liberty  is  really  to  endeavor  to  keep  the 
law — which  defines  and  so  protects  the  liberty  in  the  One- 
Spirit  of  the  One  Body. 


12 


Suffice  it  for  our  present  purpose  to  assume  that  there  is 
such  a  thing  as  plain,  strict  law  in  the  r)Ook  of  Common  Prayer 
and  in  the  Canons  of  the  Church.  There  may  be  points  of 
doubtful  interpretation.  There  may  be  archaisms  difficult  to 
literally  observe.  There  may  be  open  questions  upon  which 
the  due  authority  of  the  Church  has  not  pronounced  in  her  law. 
But  recognizing  all  this,  it  remains  that  there  is  law  that  is  as 
clear  as  the  English'  tongue  can  put  it,  and  as  binding  as  ac- 
cepted legislation  can  make  it.  And  now  let  us  leave  no  room 
for  misunderstanding.  By  law,  I  mean  here  the  law  of  wor- 
ship in  the  Prayer  Book  since  the  first  Prayer  Book  of  Edward 
the  VI.  in  1549,  and  especially  as  that  is  embodied  in  our  Amer- 
ican Book  of  Common  Prayer,  which  has  been  revised  almost 
to  date  (1892)  after  some  twelve  years  spent  m  the  revising. 
Any,  liberty  of  the  Spirit  in  thei  public  worship  of  our  Ameri- 
can Church  must  be  consonant  with  downright  loyalty  to  that 
law, — loyalty  to  its  spirit  as  to  its  letter,  loyalty  to  its  genius  as 
well  as  to  its  grammar. 

That  means,  of  course,  that  the  English  speaking  Church 
has  a  well  determined  genius  and  spirit  of  its  own,  positive, 
powerful  and  blessed — a  genius  and  spirit  that  as  it  breathes 
in  the  character  and  devotion  of  a  Jeremy  Taylor,  an  An- 
drews, a  Wilson  or  a  Keble,  and  is  phrased  everywhere  in  the 
fond  "  mother-tongue  "  of  the  Prayer  Book,  is  true  to  Scrip- 
ture and  to  th0  bestj  credentials  of  the  Holy^  Cathohc  Church. 
So  that  a  timely  reflection  for  us  of  the  English  speaking  Com- 
munion, and  a  watchword  foP  times!  of  our  transition,  is  to  be 
ourselves,  and  not  to  try  to  be  some  other  part  of  Christendom. 

Much  all  parts  of  Christendom  have  in  common,  thank  God, 
but  when  there  are  noble, tried  traits  of  our  own  worship,  it  be- 
hooves us  to  stand  by]  them  and  neither  to  apologize  for  them 
nor  to  set  them  aside  for  local  traits  of  other  communions.  All 
this,  I  believe,  finds  point  and  illustration  in  our'  Prayer  Book 
law.  Where  it  is  plaini  and  bounden,  we  are  noti  to  go  oflf  to 
other  centuries  or  other  communions  to  find  law.  CathoHc  tra- 
dition before  the  First  Book  of  Edward  may  have  much  that  is 
edifying  and  other  usages  of  Christendom  much  that  is  full'  and 
suggestive.     There  is  no  reason  why  the  scholars  should  not 


13 

fully  elucidate  this ;  no  reason  why  matter  may  not  be  g-athered 
for  future  revision  and  enrichment  of  the  Prayer  Book,  if  the 
Church  please;  no  reason!  why  all  effort  should  not  be  made 
looking  to  a  future  true  Ecumenical  Council,  which  the  federa- 
tion of  the  world  in  these  days  of  surprises  may  make  possible, 
when  now  it  seems  so  far  off. 

The  law  of  our  public  worship  is  nd  real  bar  to  the  student 
of  liturgiology,  nor  to  the  prayer  and  effort  for  the  g-reater 
Unity  of  public  worship  throughout  the  whole  Catholic  Church. 
That  is  one  thing.  It  is  quite  another  thing,  however,  when 
one  feels  bound  in  his  individual  capacity,  or  in  the  capacity  of 
aiiy  voluntary  association,  to  be  a  law  unto  himself  in  adjust- 
i)ig  or  introducing'  services  for  public  worship  without  warrant 
of.  if  not  in  contravention  of,  the  plain  law  of  the  Prayer  Book, 
either  in  the  way  of  shortening  or  slighting-  those  services  or 
of  adding  services  of  ante-Prayer  Book  times,  or  those  of  some 
modem  cult  outside  of  our  Communion.       ! 

If  the  Church  can  sometime  be  persuaded  in  its  authorita- 
tive legislation  to  duly  authorize  any  such  fondl  usage  or  such 
recent  fashion,  then  that  would  become  the  law  of  our  Church. 
But  it  cannot  be  stated  too  plainly  that  until  and  unless  the 
present  law  is  duly  superseded,  any  less  authoritative  enter- 
prise in  putting  it  aside  or  nullifying  it  can  only  lead  to  a  con- 
fusion and  an  exhibition  more  suggestive  of  man's  license  than 
of  the  obediencel  and  order  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God.  And 
the  word  of  caution  that  seems  needed  just  now  is  not  so  much 
that  we  be  careful  to  see  that  the  Reformation  of  the  Sixteenth 
Century  does  not  obscure  our  catholicity,  as  that  we  be  careful 
to  see  that  all  sorts  of  doughty  reformers  of  the  Twentieth 
Century  do  not  allow  theinselves  to  obscure  good  American 
and  Anglican  Prayer  Book  law.  Here  there  is  good  occasion 
again  to  remember  that  the  Unity  of  the  Spirit  can  only  be  pre- 
served by  preserving  the  law  and'  order  of  the  Spirit. 

There  is  in  one  of  the  very  earnest  questions  of  the  day,  I  be- 
lieve, happy  opportunity  to  put  into  practice,  first  the  law.and 
then  the  liberty  of  the  Spirit  in  a  way  which  would  further,  not 
a  little,  the  endeavor  to  keep  the'  Unity  of  the  Spirit  and  allay 
disquiet  and  concern.  The  rubric  at  the  end  of  Communion 
Office  reads: 


'4 

^  ''And  if  any  of  the  Consecrated  Bread  and  Wine  remain 
after  the  Comtmmion,  it  shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the  Church; 
but  the  Minister  and  other  Communicants  shall,  immediatelv 
after  the  Blessing,  reverently  eat  and  drink  the  same. ' ' 

That  states  a  law.  But  liberty  of  interpreting  it  is  claimed 
from  two  different  quarters,  in  that  it  is  a  rubric  with 
what  might  be  called  an  unwritten  exception.  Some  make 
that  exception  in  the  form  of  what  is  familiarly  styled  "  the 
rubric  ol  common  sense,"  and  maintain,  for  example,  that  in 
case  of  an  epidemic  where  with  communicants  dying  all  about, 
and  that  with  disease  so  deadly  that  departure  often  follows 
attack'  speedily,  it]  would  be  obviously  impossible  to  have  even 
a  shortened  form  of  Celebration  of  the  Sacrament  for  the  Sick 
for  every  one;  and  that  in  such  cases,  as  has  been  done  in  epi- 
demics of  yellow  fever,  the  priest  should  interpret  the  rubric 
to  allow  him  to  take  the  consecrated  elements  directly  from 
the  Church  to  as  many  as|  he  can  reach. 

Others  on  their  part  as  confidently  claim  that  the  rubric  is 
practically  inoperative  against  Reservation  of  the  Sacrament, 
urging  historical  data  to  the  effect  that  the  rubric  was  intro- 
duced at  a  time  when  communicants  carried  away  some  of  the 
sacred  elements  tq  their  homes  to  use  for  unauthorized  pur- 
poses, and  so  has  its  force  exhausted  against  that.  Let  us  see. 
Let  us  group  together  the  rubrics  of  authority,  not  very  many, 
which  chiefly  bear  upon  this  from  the  time  of  the  first  English 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  in  1549.  The  last  rubric  in  the 
Communion  Office  in  that  Book  refers  incidentally  to  a  super- 
stitious abuse  of  the  Sacrament  on  the  part  of  the  people  after 
it  had  been  delivered  into  the  hand.  "7 hey  many  times  con- 
veyed the  same  secretly  away,  kept  it  with  them  and  diversely 
abused  it  to  superstition  aud  wickedness. '" 

The  same  Book,  in  providing  for  a  Communion  of  the  Sick, 
has  a  long  rubric  in  which  it  first  directs  that  the  curates 
''from  time  to  time,  but  specially  in  the  plague  time,  exhort  their 
"parishioners  to  the  oft  receiving  {in  the  Church)  of  the  Holy 
Communion  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Saviour  Christ. "  But 
for  those  for  whom  the  service  is  meant  when  ' 'they  be  nH 
able  to  come  to  the  Church,''  it  is  provided,  "And  if  the  same 
day  there  be  a  celebration  of  the  Holy  Communion  in  the  Church 


15 

then  shall  the  Priest  reserve  {at  the  open  Communion)  so  much 
of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood,  as  shall  serve  the  sick 
person,  and  so  many  as  shall  communicate  with  him  {if  there  be 
any);  and  so  soon  as  he  conveniently  may,  after  the  open  Com- 
munion ended  in  the  Church,  shall  go  and  minister  tlte  same,  first 
to  those  that  are  appointed  to  communicate  with  the  sick  {if  there 
be  any) ,  and  last  of  all  to  the  sick  person  hiinself. ' ' 

^  ' '  But  if  the  day  be  not  appointed  for  the  open  Communion  in 
the  Church,  then  {upon  convenient  warni?ig  given)  the  curate 
shall  come  and  visit  the  sick  person  afore  noon.  And  having  a 
convenient  place  in  the  sick  man's  house  {where  he  may  reverently 
celebrate)  with  all  things  necessary  for  the  same,  and  not  being 
otherwise  letted  with  the  public  service  or  any  other  Just  impedi- 
ment; he  shall  there  celebrate  the  Holy  Cotnmunion  after  such 
form  and  sort  as  hereafter  is  appointed. " 

^  ''And  if  there  be  more  sick  persons  to  be  visited  the  same  day 
that  the  curate  doth  celebrate  in  any  sick  man's  house;  then  shall 
the  curate  {there)  reserve  so  much  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body 
and  Blood,  as  shall  serve  the  other  sick  persons,  and  such  as  be 
appointed  to  communicate  with  them  {if  there  be  any);  and  shall 
immediately  carry  it  and  minister  it  unto  them.'' 

In  the  next  Revision  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  in 
1552,  there  is  no  express  mention  of  Reservation  in  the  rubrics 
of  the  Communion  Of^ces,  that  for  the  Communion  of  the 
Sick  providing  simply  for  consecration  at  each  time  of  its  use, 
and  making  no  mention  of  any  carrying  the  consecrated  ele- 
ment fromi  the  Church  to  the  sick  room. 

In  the;  last  revision  of  the  English  Book  in  1662  the  rubric 
was  inserted  in  the  Communion  Office  essentially  as  it  is  now: 

^  ''And  if  any  of  the  Bread  and  Wine  remain  unconsecratedi 
the  Curate  shall  have  it  to  his  own  use;  but  if  any  remain  of  that 
which  was  consecrated,  it  shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the  Church,  but 
the  Priest  and  such  other  of  the  communicants  as  he  shall  then 
call  unto  him  shall,  immediately  after  the  Blessing,  reverently  eat 
and  drink  the  same." 

Our  American  rubric,  as  already  given,  is  almost  identical. 
Since  1549  the  Office  for  the  Communion  of  the  Sick  has  made 
no  reference  to  Reservation,  but  provided  in  express  terms  for 


i6 

a  fresh  consecration  each  time.  When  it  is  remembered  that 
our  American  Prayer  Book  in  some  essential  features  has  fol- 
lowed throug^h  our!  first  American  Bishop,  Seabury,  who  was 
consecrated  in  Scotland,  Scotch  rather  than  English  usage  it 
makes  it  germane  to  include  here  also  some  rubrics  from  books 
associated  with  the  Church  in  Scotland.  A  book  was  prepared 
for  Scotland  in  1637,  and  although  never  used,  it  bears  evi- 
dence to  the  traditional)  usage  of  that  Church. 

''And  if  any  of  the  Bread  and  Wine  remain^  which  is  conse-^ 
crated,  it  shall  be  reverently  eaten  and  drunk  by  such  of  the  com- 
municants only  as  tJte  Presbyter  which  celebrates  shall  take   unto 
him,  but  it  shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the  Church,'" 

Nearly  a  century  later,  as  the  direct  result,  it  wouldl  appear, 
of  a  conference  with  the  Eastern  Church,  appeared  the  Scotch 
Office  of  1 718,  and  in  that  we  find  the  following  rubric: 

^  ''If  there  be  any  persons  who  through  sickness,  or  any  other 
urgent  cause,  are  under  a  necessity  of  communicatins:  at  their 
houses;  then  the  Priest  shall  reserve  at  the  open  Communion  so 
much  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood,  as  shall  serve 
those  who  are  to  receive  it  at  home.  And  if  after  that,  or  if, 
when  none  are  to  communicate  at  their  houses,  any  of  the  conse- 
crated elements  remain,  then  it  shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the 
Church;  but  the  Priest,  and  such  other  of  the  Communicants  as 
he  shall  call  unto  him,  shall  immediately  after  the  Blessing  rev- 
erently eat  and  drink  the  same. ' ' 

The  present  Scotch  Office  authorized  for  occasional  use,  the 
English  Prayer  Book  being  the  one  generally  used,  m.akesj  no 
reference  to  Reservation. 

This  resume  of  rubrics  is,  I  believe,  sufficient  in  itself  with- 
out entering  into  the  question  of  Canons  or  Articles  to  illus- 
trate— and  they  are  cited  by  way  of  illustration  ofi  the  point 
rather  than  of  detailed  study — the  finding  of  a  fair  correlation 
of  law  and  liberty  for  our  day.     ' 

The  law  in  our  rubrics  is  plain  enough  as  it  stands.  It  pro- 
vides for  the  well  communicant  to  receive  at  the  Church.  It 
provides!  for  the  sick  communicant  who  cannot  receive  at  the 
Church  toi  have  the  service  with  the  full  consecration  of  the 
elements  at  home.     It  says  nothing  about  that  law  of  necessity, 


'7 

when  in  an  epidemic  it  would  be  impossible  to  have  a  new  con- 
secration of  the  elements  for  every  one  of  a  multitude  of  sick 
and  dying.  Just  in  that  remote  and  very  exceptional  particu- 
lar it  is  not  explicit,  and  no  law  ever  is  framed  which  can  meet 
all  contingencies.  Under  all  other  circumstances  the  rubric 
is  certainly  not  ambiguous.  It  says  the  elements  that  remain 
must  be  consumed,  must  not  be  carried  out  of  the  Church. 
Can,  that  mean  other  than  what  it  declares  in  this  clear,  two- 
fold way  of  putting  it?  And  it  is  to  be  noted  that  even  in  the 
distinct  Reservation  for  the  Sick,  as  far  asi  the  rubrics  quoted 
indicate  the  mind  of  the  Church,  they,  so  to  speak,  exhaust 
the  use  of  the  elements  with  their  use  for  the  sick. 

The  rubric  quoted  from  the  Office  of  the  Communion  of  the 
Sick  in  1549,  expressly  directs  that  the  Priest  '^So  soon  as  he 
convenieyitly  jnay,  after  the  ope7i  Communion  ended  in  the 
Church  shall  go  and  minister  the  same'^  that  is,  '''so  much  of  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  blood  as  shall  serve  the  sick  per- 
son.^' Then,  as  in  evidence  that  it  assumes  thaf  there  is  none 
reserved  after  the  sick  communion,  it  further  provides  that 
'' if  the  day  be  not  appointed  for  the  open  communion  in  the 
Church  there  shall  be  the  fresh  celebration  for  the  sick,"  which 
obviously  would  not  be  necessary  if  any  of  the  Sacrament  were 
reserved  anywhere  from  any  previous  consecration.  Further- 
more, it  is  significant  that  in  the  Scotch  rubric  of  171 8,  quoted 
above,  after  providing  for  the  reserving  "  So  much  of  the  Sac- 
rament of  the  Body  and  Blood  as  shall  serve  those  who  are  to 
receive  at  home,''  it  is  required  ''if  after  ihat,  or  if  when  none 
are  to  communicate  in  their  houses  any  of  the  consecrated  elements 
remain,''  the  Priest  and  Commutiicants  ''shall  ifnmediately 
after  the  Blessing  reverently  eat  and  drink  the  same. " 

The  purport  ofi  the  rubrics  can  hardly  be  doubtful  to  any 
mind.  They  contemplate  but  one  divergence  from  the  strict 
rule  to  leave  none  of  the  consecrated  elements  after  a  celebra- 
tion on  the  paten  or  in  the  chalice,  or  in  any  other  receptacle  in 
the  Church.  They  are  to  be  consumed  then  and  there.  They 
are  not  to  be  carried  out  of  the  Church,  save  in  an  emergency 
which  cannot  be  otherwise  provided  against.  And  if  carried  to 
sick  persons  for  whoni  a  private  celebration  would  be  impos- 


l8 

sible,  the  rubrics  know  no  further  deviation  from  the  strict 
letter  of  the  law  not  to  reserve.  In  a  word  there  is  no  indica- 
tion anywhere  in  the  rubrics  that  the  well  or  sick  in  the  Church 
should  make  use  of  the  elements  in  any  way  outside  of  the 
Communion  Office  itself,  and  the  reservation  contemplated  in 
the  earlier  rubrics  I  have  adduced  practically  only  amounts  to 
a  timei  for  a  journey  of  the  Priest  from  the  altar  to  a  sick  bed 
instead  of  from  the  altar  to  the  rail — only  time  for  a  few  more 
steps  of  ministration,  only  that  unavoidable  delay  between  con- 
secration and  the  first  possible  opportunity  of  reception,  which 
a  sick  person  a  few  blocks  off  might  require  over  the  well  per- 
son kneeling  at  the  rail  a  few  feet  off. 

To  make  the  rubrics  mean  something  else  can  only  be  ac- 
complished by  making  them  say  something  other  than  they  do. 
It  is  of  course  conceivable  that  some  new  mind  of  the  Church 
may  find  new  expression  by  revising  the  rubrics.  But  until 
such  revision  they  must  stand  as  they  are,  and  where  will  be 
any  Unity  of  the  Spirit,  or  for  that  matter,  any  wholesome  lib- 
erty of  the  Spirit  unless  they  are  dutifully  obeyed  as  they  are? 
And  Reservation  for  any  other  purpose  than  for  administermg 
as  soon  as  may  be  to  the  sick  when  conditions  absolutely  pre- 
vent the  use  of  the  Office  for  Communion  of  the  Sick, — Reser- 
vation for  any  other,  purpose  like  that  o£  the  service  of  Bene- 
diction of  the  Sacrament,  however  lawful  in  another  Com- 
munion or  another  age,  have  no  rubrical  warrant  from<  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer.  Such  Reservation  oversteps  any 
liberty  and  outreaches  any  law  determined  by  that  Book  as  it 
now  is.  And  if  the  aim,  be  to  have  another  Book  which  will 
make  it  lawful,  that  can  only  h^  accompHshed  by  a  lawful  re- 
vision by  the  Church,  not  by  the  independent  action  of  indi- 
viduals here  and  there.  And  perhaps  on  this  very  matter  of 
Reservation  no  one  better  stands  as  Seer  than  the  present 
Bishop  of  Salisbury,  who  in  his  recent  book,  "  The  Ministry  of 
Grace,"  says: 

"  I  dO'  not,  however,;  for  various  reasons,  wish  for  Reserva- 
tion [for  the  purposei  of  communion  of  the  sick]  to  be  re- 
stored; and  I  think  that  the  three  dangers  attending  it  must 
be  obvious  to  everycme.     First,  I  would  put  the  deprival  of  the 


19 

sick  of  the  blessing  of'  a  fuller  service  than  that  which  accom- 
panies the  reception  of  a  reserved  sacrament;  secondly,  the 
separation  of  their  actual  communion  from  that  of  their  pastor 
and  of  other  faithful  people;  thirdly,  the  danger  on  the  one 
side  of  superstition,  and  on  the  other  of  irreverence  in  reserving 
the  consecrated  Sacrament  in  Church  and  carrying  of  it 
through  the  streets." 

The  law  that  is,  never  can  safely  be  mistaken  for  another 
law;  one  ivishei  it  were,  without  shaking  the  stability  of  all  law. 
And  even  if  it  be  the  case  of  a  law  which  is  defective,  it  is  a 
maxim  of  legislators  that  to  strictly  obey  it  is  the  best  way  to 
lead,'  to  its  revision  or  repeal. 

In  view  of  all  this  it  is  not  surprising  that  a  first  impulse  on 
the  part  of  some  is  to  resort  to  sharp  measures.  On  the  one 
side  strict  enforcement  of  the  rubric  as  it  stands  by  canonical 
process  is  felt  to  be  the  only  course.  On  the  other  hand,  just 
that  is  invited  by  those  who  are  minded  to  practice  reserva- 
tion. And  if  sometimes  there  is  on  the  one  side  a  faint  sugges- 
tion of  the  historic  animus  of  persecution,  there  is  on  the  other 
not  altogether  an  absence  now  and  then  of  that  old  Donatistic 
supercharged  zeal  for  martyrdom.  In  neither  case  is  there 
just  the  temper  suited  to  making  the  best  interpretation  of  an 
age  of  transition  into  greater  liberty.  In  each  case  the  rising 
to  the  true  level  of  this  Apostolic  appeal,  the  downright  devo- 
tion to  the  endeavor  to>  keep  the  Unity  of  the  Spirit  is,  I  be- 
lieve, the  far  better  way. 

The  Apostles  had  a  good  many  spectacles  of  things  awry  in 
the  Church  before  men  and  angels  to  contend  with  and  write 
about.  But  there  is  no  record  of  their  attempt  to  enforce 
Unity  with  a  canonical  bandage.  That  would  have  been  a 
Unity  of  the  splint  rather  than  of  the  Spirit,  a  holding  in  place 
of  a  fracture  without  the  knitting  of  the  bone.  Nor  while  the 
Apostolic  Christians  used  their  liberty  sometimes  in  a  way  not 
altogether  congenial  to  Apostolic  serenity  do  we  ever  discover 
that  they  were  conscious  of  any  desire  to  use  it  as  a  basis  for  an 
ecclesiastical  trial.  No,  the!  text  was  a  maxim,  and  more  than 
that,  a  real  working  theory  of  the  Church,  if  we  are  to  judge 
by  the  Book  of,  Acts  and  the  Epistles,  and  all!  felt  the  force  of 


295586 


20 

that  animating^  endeavor  to  keep  the  Unity  of  the;  Spirit.  To 
the  law;  of  the  Spirit  there  was  loyaUy.  To  the  Hberty  of  the 
Spirit  there  was  the  check  of  this  loyalty,  and  the  conscience 
not  to  make  stumbHng  blocks  for  others. 

The  genius  of  oui^  American  Qiurch,  brethren,  is  rising  to 
this  level  more  fully  and  more  hopefully,  depend  upon  it,  than 
we  are  apt  to  appreciate.  And  there;  was  striking"  evidence  of 
it  in  the  whole  atmosphere  of  our  great  representative  body, — 
the  General  Convention  which  has  recently  left  so  many  bless- 
ings and  happy  memories  with  us  here.  One  could  not 
breathe  that  atmosphere  without  feeling  that  he  was  at  a 
wholesome  meeting  place  of  both  the  fealty  and  the  freedom 
oi  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God.  The  code  and  the  sweet  reason- 
ableness of  it  all  is  the  real  charmi  of  the  General  Convention. 

Our  American  Church  is  full  of  most  assuring  demonstra- 
tions of  the  working  of  the  Unity  of  the  Spirit,  indeed,  it  is  not 
too  much  to  say  that  our  American]  Church  itself  is  one  long 
demonstration  of  the  Unity  of  the  Spirit.  What  but  the 
precious  guidance  and  over-ruling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  could 
have  carried  the  Church  through  its  Colonial  perils,  through 
its  devastation  in  the  War  of  the  Revolution,  through  the  de- 
lays and  difficulties  of  nearly  two  hundred  years  in  securing  the 
Episcopate,  through  the  dire  sectionalism  of  country  and 
Church  after  the  Episcopate  was  secured,  through  the  con- 
troversies since  the  Oxford  Movement,  through  the  separation 
of  the  South  fromi  North  in  the  Civil  War,  and  through  all 
the  human  frailties  and  follies  which  belong  to  the  rise  and 
rapid  growth  of  a  new  and  gigantic  nation? 

Where  in  history,  and  with  wliat  assuring  experience,  has 
our  Blessed  Lord  proved  more  signally  that  the  gates  of  Hell 
shall  not  prevail  against  that  Unity  of  the  Spirit? 

And  here  let  us  see  with  the  seeing  of  the  Seer,  and  aim  with 
the  aim  of  the  great  Apostle,  in  our  own  fond  California  life 
with  its  singular  fascination,  if  with  its  sobering  problems,  witn 
its  ozone  of  opportunity  and  its  outlook  losing  itself  only  on 
ocean  liorizons,  and  on  wavy  sky-lines  of  the  lofty  peaks  like 
great  registering  lines  on  fever  charts  of  human  progress,  let 
us  set  our  faces  towards  the  highest  possible  development  of 


21 

that  same  genius  of  the  American  Church,  having  a  ready 
mind  and  will  to  the  law  that  is,  and  yet  free  with  all  the  liberty 
wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free,  that  genius  great  not  in 
foro  confensioso,  but  in  foro  conscicntice,  great  in  a  de  Koven  say- 
ing when  asked,  "  Do  you  advocate  Reservation  for  Adora- 
tion?"    "  I  do  not."     Great  in  a  Coxe's  muse  singing  of 

"That  holy  service  high, 
That  lifted  my  soul  to  joys  above 
And  pleasures  that  do  not  die." 

Great  in  a  Phillips  Brooks'  "  heart  and  mind  deep  and  wide  as 
the  ocean  at  his  door  "  as  it  strove  to  fill  itself  with  what  he  at- 
tributed to  the  Sacrament  "  The  life  fed  on  God."  No  one 
leader  is  able  to  express  it  all,  but  all  express  something*  of  it 
in  the  genius  of  their  greatness. 

Why  not  then,  fellow-followers  of  Jesus  Christ,  have  our 
California  Church  life  catch  more  of  this  high  endeavor?  Why 
not  aim  at  no  less  than  the  Unity  of  God's  Holy  Spirit  as  our 
real  esprit  dc  corps  F  Why  not  mark  California  Churchmanship 
as  in  the  forefront  of  the  century's  march  into  the  era  of  greater 
freedom  that  promises  to  be?  Why  not  pledge  anew  all  fealty 
to  the  simple  law  that  is?  Why  not  make  our  type  of  Church 
lifei  and  Church  thought  and  Church  progress  here  stand  for 
that  great  onward  sweep  of  the(  Church  of  the  Redeemer  to- 
ward the  One  Only  Saviour,  the  Prince  of  Peace? 


I 


AT 

iOS  AKGELBS 

LIBRARY 


UC  SOLITHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


- ,        - iIni  Hill  ill 

AA    000  977  690    7 


